SECURING THE FUTURE
Regional and National Programs to Support the Semiconductor Industry
CHARLES W. WESSNER, EDITOR
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-08501-2
Limited copies are available from Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, National Research Council, 500 Fifth Street, NW, W547, Washington, DC 20001; 202-334-2200.
Additional copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Steering Committee for Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies*
Gordon Moore, Chair Chairman Emeritus, retired
Intel Corporation
M. Kathy Behrens Managing Director of Medical Technology
Robertson Stephens Investment Management and STEP Board
Michael Borrus Managing Director
The Petkevich Group, LLC
Iain M. Cockburn Professor of Finance and Economics
Boston University
Kenneth Flamm Dean Rusk Chair in International Affairs
LBJ School of Public Affairs University of Texas at Austin
James F. Gibbons Professor of Engineering
Stanford University
W. Clark McFadden Partner
Dewey Ballantine
Burton J. McMurtry General Partner
Technology Venture Investors
William J. Spencer, Vice-Chair Chairman Emeritus
International SEMATECH, retired and STEP Board
Mark B. Myers Visiting Executive Professor of Management
The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania and STEP Board
Richard Nelson George Blumenthal Professor of International and Public Affairs
Columbia University
Edward E. Penhoet Chief Program Officer,
Science and Higher Education Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and STEP Board
Charles Trimble Chairman
U.S. GPS Industry Council
John P. Walker Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Axys Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Patrick Windham President,
Windham Consulting and Lecturer, Stanford University
Project Staff*
Charles W. Wessner Study Director
Sujai J. Shivakumar Program Officer
Adam Korobow Program Officer
Alan Anderson Consultant
David E. Dierksheide Program Associate
Christopher S. Hayter Program Associate
Tabitha M. Benney Program Associate
McAlister T. Clabaugh Program Associate
For the National Research Council (NRC), this project was overseen by the Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy (STEP), a standing board of the NRC established by the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine in 1991. The mandate of the STEP Board is to integrate understanding of scientific, technological, and economic elements in the formulation of national policies to promote the economic well-being of the United States. A distinctive characteristic of STEP’s approach is its frequent interactions with public and private-sector decision makers. STEP bridges the disciplines of business management, engineering, economics, and the social sciences to bring diverse expertise to bear on pressing public policy questions. The members of the STEP Board* and the NRC staff are listed below.
Dale Jorgenson, Chair Frederic Eaton Abbe Professor of Economics
Harvard University
M. Kathy Behrens Managing Director of Medical Technology
Robertson Stephens Investment Management
Bronwyn Hall Professor of Economics
University of California at Berkeley
James Heckman Henry Schultz Distinguished Service Professor of Economics
University of Chicago
Ralph Landau Consulting Professor of Economics
Stanford University
Richard Levin President
Yale University
William J. Spencer, Vice-Chair Chairman Emeritus
International SEMATECH, retired
David T. Morgenthaler Founding Partner
Morgenthaler
Mark B. Myers Visiting Executive Professor of Management
The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania
Roger Noll Morris M. Doyle Centennial Professor of Economics
Stanford University
Edward E. Penhoet Chief Program Officer,
Science and Higher Education Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
William Raduchel Chief Technology Officer
AOL Time Warner
Alan Wm. Wolff Managing Partner
Dewey Ballantine
STEP Staff*
Stephen A. Merrill Executive Director
Russell Moy Senior Program Officer
Craig M. Schultz Research Associate
Camille M. Collett Program Associate
Christopher S. Hayter Program Associate
David E. Dierksheide Program Associate
Charles W. Wessner Program Director
Sujai J. Shivakumar Program Officer
Adam Korobow Program Officer
McAlister T. Clabaugh Program Associate
Tabitha M. Benney Program Associate
National Research Council
Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy
Sponsors
The National Research Council gratefully acknowledges the support of the following sponsors:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Office of the Director, Defense Research & Engineering
National Science Foundation
U.S. Department of Energy
Optoelectronics Industry Development Association
Office of Naval Research
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Sandia National Laboratories
Electric Power Research Institute
International Business Machines
Kulicke and Soffa Industries
Merck and Company
Milliken Industries
Motorola
Nortel
Procter and Gamble
Silicon Valley Group, Incorporated
Advanced Micro Devices
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the project sponsors.
Contents
|
Opening Remarks |
|||
The U.S. Experience: SEMATECH |
||||
The SEMATECH Contribution |
||||
The Impact of SEMATECH on Semiconductor R&D |
||||
Current Challenges: A U.S. and Global Perspective |
||||
Discussant: |
Current Japanese Partnerships: Selete and ASET |
||||
The Selete Program |
||||
The Role of ASET |
||||
Japanese Consortia for Semiconductor R&D |
||||
University Research Centers for Silicon Technology |
||||
European Partnerships |
||||
The MEDEA Program |
||||
Government-Industry Partnerships in Europe I |
||||
Government-Industry Partnerships in Europe II |
||||
The Taiwanese Approach |
||||
Government-Industry Partnerships in Taiwan |
||||
The Science Park Approach in Taiwan |
||||
Discussant: |
Challenges Facing the Equipment Industry |
||||
Challenges I |
||||
Challenges II |
||||
Challenges III |
||||
The Internationalization of Cooperation— New Challenges |
||||
A U.S. Perspective |
||||
A Japanese Perspective |
||||
A Taiwanese Perspective |
||||
A European Perspective |
||||
|
Competing Programs: Government Support for Microelectronics |
|||
|
SEMATECH Revisited: Assessing Consortium Impacts on Semiconductor Industry R&D |
Preface
This report was prepared by the Steering Committee for Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies under the auspices of the National Research Council’s Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP). The STEP Board has undertaken a major study of the programs and issues associated with public-private collaboration for the development of new technologies. This report is one component of a multifaceted review of U.S. and foreign programs to develop new technologies, often described as public-private partnerships. The project’s multidisciplinary Steering Committee, led by Gordon Moore, Chairman Emeritus of Intel, and Bill Spencer, Chairman Emeritus of SEMATECH, is charged with addressing such issues as the rationale for government-industry cooperation to develop new technologies, current practices, sectoral differences, means of evaluation, the experience of foreign-based partnerships, and the roles of government laboratories, universities and other nonprofit research organizations. Overall, the study will have produced some 10 analyses of public-private partnerships.
This report focuses on public-private cooperation in the semiconductor industry.1 The deliberations and analysis it contains are intended to improve policy makers’ understanding of the diversity and scale of regional and national programs designed to support the semiconductor industry around the world. It draws together field research, empirical analysis, and the presentations and discussions of the leaders and industrial participants in the principal regional and national
programs.2 These same leading figures also discuss the research challenges facing the semiconductor industry. Also included are the Committee’s specific recommendations concerning public support needed for research in the disciplines that underpin this enabling industry.
Semiconductors are pervasive and an importance source of productivity in the modern economy. Their rapid technological evolution—characterized by continuously increasing productivity and contemporaneously decreasing cost—has been a source of growth in emerging industries, while concurrently revitalizing more traditional industrial sectors.3 The strong performance and development of the U.S. economy in recent years is rooted in the investment in and subsequent application of information technologies ultimately driven by modern semiconductor technology.4 Semiconductors also play a crucial role in ensuring our national security by allowing advances in the capabilities of new devices, new technologies, and new applications for national defense. The pervasive impact of the microelectronics sector on economic growth—through improved communications, advances in health care, and better national security technologies—underscores the importance of the United States’ position in semiconductor production and development.
The discussion and research in this report clarify the extent to which the SEMATECH model, developed in the United States in response to needs of the industry in the 1980s, has been emulated abroad.5 Correspondingly, it notes the degree to which the principle of cooperative government-industry research activ
ity has been adopted and accelerated—often with success—in other semiconductor-producing countries and regions.
The considerable technical challenges that must be addressed by the industry, and the ambitious foreign programs designed to do this, are reminders that continued U.S. leadership cannot be taken for granted. In fact, the development of new production models, such as the foundry system, as well as increases in national support for domestic production facilities, present serious competitive challenges to the U.S. industry. Overcoming these and other challenges will require continued policy engagement and public investment through renewed attention to basic research and cooperative mechanisms such as public-private partnerships.
This type of cooperative activity to develop promising technologies is not new.6 Indeed, beginning with the mid-1980s, the United States has undertaken a remarkably wide range of public-private partnerships in high-technology sectors.7 There are public-private consortia of many types and multiple aims; some leverage the social benefits associated with federal R&D activity, while others seek to enhance the position of a national industry. Still other public-private consortia address the need to deploy R&D to meet other government missions.8 The U.S. economy continues to be distinguished by the extent to which individual entrepreneurs and researchers take the lead in developing innovations and starting new businesses, yet, in doing so, they often harvest crops sown on fields made fertile by the government’s long-term research investments.9
Americans have long held the conviction that new technologies offer the best means of meeting societal challenges, whether in the realms of defense, energy, or the environment.10 The substantial federal investment in research and devel
opment reflects this conviction. Around the globe, policy makers now recognize that the breadth of potential applications of new technologies, their greater complexity, and the rising costs and technical risks of developing these new technologies require a supportive policy framework.11 Against this background, various forms of public-private cooperation are increasingly seen as effective means to bring new, welfare-enhancing and wealth-generating technologies to the market.12
THE ROLE OF THE BOARD ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND ECONOMIC POLICY
Since 1991 the National Research Council’s Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) has undertaken a program of activities to improve policy makers’ understanding of the interconnections of science, technology, and economic policy and their importance for the American economy and its international competitive position. The Board’s activities have corresponded with increased recognition by policy makers of the importance of technology to economic growth. The new economic growth theory emphasizes the role of technology creation, which is believed to be characterized by significant growth externalities.13 A consequence of the renewed appreciation of growth externalities is recognition of the economic geography of economic development. With growth externalities coming about in part from the exchanges of knowledge among innovators, certain regions become centers for particular types of high-growth activities.14
Some economic analysis suggests that high technology is often characterized
by increasing rather than decreasing returns, justifying to some the proposition that governments can capture permanent advantage in key industries by providing relatively small but potentially decisive support to bring national industries up the learning curve and down the cost curve.15 In part, this is why the economic literature now recognizes the relationship between technology policy and trade policy.16 Recognition of these linkages and the corresponding ability of governments to shift comparative advantage in favor of the national economy provide intellectual underpinning for government support for high-technology industry.17 Another widely recognized rationale for government support for high technology exists in cases in which a technology generates benefits which cannot be fully captured by the innovating firms. These benefits to other firms in the economy are often referred to as spillovers.18 There are also cases in which the cost of a given technology may be prohibitive for individual companies, even though potential benefits to society are substantial and widespread.19
EARLY PARTNERSHIPS
Recognition of the benefits of new technologies and the need to provide incentives to the private sector to develop them dates back to the origins of the Republic.20 Driven by the exigencies of national defense and the requirements of
transportation and communication across the American continent, the federal government has played an instrumental role in developing new production techniques and technologies. To do so, government has often turned to individual entrepreneurs with innovative ideas. For example, in 1798 the federal government laid the foundation for the first machine tool industry with a contract to the inventor, Eli Whitney, for interchangeable musket parts.21 A few decades later, in 1842, a hesitant Congress appropriated funds to demonstrate the feasibility of Samuel Morse’s telegraph.22 Both Whitney and Morse fostered significant innovations that led to whole new industries. Indeed, Morse’s innovation was the first step on the road toward today’s networked planet.
The support for Morse’s new invention was not an isolated case. The federal government increasingly saw economic development as central to its responsibilities. Examples of federal contributions to U.S. economic development abound. The government played a key role in the development of the U.S. railway network, the growth of agriculture through the Morrill Act (1862) and the creation of the agricultural extension service, and support of industry through the creation of the National Bureau of Standards in 1901.23
Throughout the 20th century, the federal government had an enormous impact on the structure and composition of the economy through regulation, procurement, and a vast array of policies to support industrial and agricultural development. Between World War I and World War II, these policies included support for the development of key industries with commercial and military applications, such as radios and aircraft frames and engines. The requirements of World War
II generated a huge increase in government procurement and support for high-technology industries. At the industrial level, there were “major collaborative initiatives in pharmaceutical manufacturing, petrochemicals, synthetic rubber, and atomic weapons.”24 An impressive array of weapons based on new technologies was developed during the war, ranging from radar and improved aircraft to missiles and, not least, the atomic bomb. Many of these military technologies found civilian applications after the war.
Both during and after the war, the government made unprecedented investments in computer technology.25 During the war it played a central role in creating the first electronic digital computers, the ENIAC and the Colossus.26 Following the war, the federal government began to fund basic research at universities on a significant scale, first through the Office of Naval Research and later through the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Public Health Service.27 At the same time, the continued reluctance of commercial firms, such as IBM and NCR, to invest large sums in what they considered to be risky research and development projects with uncertain markets forced the government to continue sponsoring the development of the new technology now referred to as computers.28 In this early phase, the National Bureau of Standards [the precursor of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)] made a significant contribution, through its SEAC machine, to the development of the modern computer.29 Throughout the Cold War, the United States continued to emphasize
technological superiority as a means of ensuring U.S. security. Government funds and cost-plus contracts helped to support systems and enabling technologies such as semiconductors and new materials, radar, jet engines, advanced computer hardware and software, and missiles.
In the post-Cold War period, the evolution of the American economy continues to be profoundly marked by government-funded research in areas such as microelectronics, robotics, biotechnology, and the human genome, and through earlier investments in communications networks such as ARPANET—the fore-runner of today’s Internet.
PROJECT PARAMETERS
To advance our understanding of the operation and performance of partnerships, the STEP Board has undertaken a major study of programs relying on public-private collaboration for the development of new technologies. The project’s multidisciplinary Steering Committee30 includes members from academia, high-technology industries, venture capital firms, and the realm of public policy. The intent of the study is to focus on best practices rather than general questions of principle regarding the appropriateness of government involvement in partnerships. The Committee’s charge is to take a pragmatic approach to address such issues as the rationale and organizing principles of government-industry cooperation to develop new technologies, current practices, sectoral differences, means of evaluation, the experience of foreign-based partnerships, and the roles of government laboratories, universities, and other non-profit research organizations.
As a program-based assessment of partnerships, the study has given particular attention to generic partnership programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) and Advanced Technology Program (ATP), and to the needs emerging from the growth in health-related funding and the relative decline in R&D support in areas such as information technologies. A series of 10 reports on these programs and topics contributes to the Committee’s Summary report.
The Committee’s analysis has included a significant but necessarily limited portion of the wide variety of cooperative activity that takes place between the government and the private sector.31 The selection of specific programs to re
30 |
For the Committee membership, see the front matter of this volume. |
31 |
For example, DARPA’s programs and contributions have not been reviewed. For an indication of the scope of cooperative activity, see Coburn and Berglund, op. cit.; and the RaDiUS database, <HtmlResAnchor www.rand.org/services/radius/>. |
view has been conditioned by the Committee’s desire to carry out an analysis of current partnerships directly relevant to contemporary policy making. The Committee also recognizes the importance of placing each of the studies in the broader context of U.S. technology policy, which continues to employ a wide variety of ad hoc mechanisms developed through the government’s decentralized decision-making and management process.
The Committee’s desire to ensure that its deliberations and analysis are directly relevant to current policy making has allowed it to be responsive to requests from both the Executive Branch and Congress for examinations of various policies and programs of current policy relevance. These would include a White House and State Department request for an evaluation of opportunities for greater transatlantic cooperation as a result of the signature of the U.S.-E.U. Agreement on Science and Technology Cooperation, a request by the Defense Department’s Under Secretary for Technology and Acquisitions to review the Fast Track initiative of the SBIR program at the Department of Defense, and a request by NIST for an assessment of the Advanced Technology Program, in compliance with Senate Report 105-235.32 The Committee has also focused its attention on the emerging needs, synergies, and opportunities between the fields of biotechnology and computing, with special attention directed to the differences and similarities in government support for technology development in biotechnology and computing, the different uses of intellectual property in these sectors, and the need for balanced investments across disciplines. To meet its proposed objectives, the study has focused on the assessment of current and proposed programs, drawing on the experience of previous U.S. initiatives, foreign practice, and emerging areas (e.g., bioinformatics) resulting from U.S. investments in advanced technologies. A summary of the partnerships taken up by the study is included in Box A.
SUPPORT FOR ANALYSIS OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS
There is broad support for this type of objective analysis among federal agencies and the private sector. Government agencies supporting this analysis include the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, especially the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Office of Naval Research, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Sandia National Laboratories and the Electric
Box A Partnerships Reviewed by theGovernment-Industry PartnershipsStudy The NRC study of Government-Industry Partnerships for the Development of New Technologies has reviewed a wide range of partnerships. The study can be divided into four primary areas: analysis of current U.S. partnership programs, potential partnerships, industry-national laboratory partnerships, and international collaboration and benchmarking. The analysis of current U.S. partnerships has focused on the Small Business Innovation Research Program, the Advanced Technology Program, and partnerships in biotechnology and computing. The review of potential partnerships for specific technologies, based on the project’s extensive generic partnerships analysis, has focused on needs in biotechnology and computing and on opportunities in solid-state lighting. The industry-laboratory analysis has reviewed the potential of science and technology parks at Sandia National Laboratories and NASA Ames Research Center. International collaboration and benchmarking studies have included outlining new opportunities resulting from the U.S.-E.U. Science and Technology Agreement and, in this volume, a review of regional and national programs to support the semiconductor industry, focusing on Japan, Europe, Taiwan, and the United States. |
Power Research Institute have also contributed. Private support is provided by a diverse group of private corporations. All sponsors are listed in the front matter.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Highlights of the conference on Regional and National Programs to Support the Semiconductor Industry include presentations by leaders of semiconductor industry in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. A complete list of participants is included in Annex B of this volume. The Proceedings section of this volume contains detailed summaries of their presentations and discussions. On behalf of the National Academies, we wish to express our appreciation and recognition for the insights, experiences, and perspectives made available by the participants. We are very much in debt to the senior executives, researchers, and Committee members who joined experts from the United States for this exceptional meeting.
Recognition is also due to Thomas Howell of Dewey Ballantine LLP, and Kenneth Flamm of the University of Texas. Both authors have contributed significant original research to this report. Howell’s compendium of national and regional programs, which is largely based on in-country and language-of-origin
research, is especially rich. No comparable review exists. Similarly, Flamm has prepared a careful analysis of SEMATECH’s contribution to the industry and a review of the existing literature of this exceptional consortium. His empirical analysis and greater rigor cast new light on the contributions of the SEMATECH consortium.
Given the quality and the number of presentations, summarizing the papers and conference proceedings has been a challenge. We have made every effort to capture the main points made during the presentations and the ensuing discussions. We apologize for any inadvertent errors or omissions in our summary of the proceedings.
A number of individuals with the National Academies deserve recognition for their contributions to the preparation of this report. Among the STEP staff, Adam Korobow contributed a great deal to the preparation of the report and quality and originality of its research. He is joined by Alan Anderson, who prepared the proceedings summary, and Sujai Shivakumar, who also assisted in the preparation of the report. Christopher Hayter and McAlister Clabaugh each contributed a great deal to the preparation and quality of the report. David Dierksheide deserves particular recognition for his skill, persistence, and dedication during the review and preparation of this report. He and Chris Hayter put in many long hours to ensure a quality product. Without their sustained efforts among many other competing priorities, this report would not have been possible.
NRC REVIEW
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Avram Bar-Cohen, University of Maryland; John Chipman, University of Minnesota; David Hodges, University of California, Berkeley; Thomas Kalil, University of California, Berkeley; Martha Krebs, University of California, Los Angeles; Egbert Maynard, Microelectronics Advanced Research Corporation; Lawrence Thompson, Ultratech Stepper, Inc.; and Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, University of Pennsylvania.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Gerald Dinneen. Appointed by the National
Academies, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
STRUCTURE
Following the Executive Summary, Part I of this report presents an introduction of the current trends within industry and the policies to encourage its growth, followed by a summary of the conference presentations and the papers. Part II presents the Findings and Recommendations, which are the collective responsibility of the Steering Committee. Part III summarizes the Conference Proceedings. It is especially rich in that it sets out the views of the conference participants in some detail. Part IV presents two commissioned papers which, though subject to NRC editing, remain the responsibility of the authors.
The report’s goal is to advance our understanding of the contributions of this unique industry, the exceptional technical challenges it faces, and the substantial programs that are under way around the world to address them. If the American economy is to continue to benefit from the leading position of this industry in the global marketplace, we must renew and strengthen our commitment to the institutions and scientific research that are essential to its continued progress.
Gordon Moore William Spencer Charles Wessner